ID: nht93-9.26

DATE: December 27, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Kenneth Weinstein

TO: Lisa A. Norris

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/1/93 from Lisa A. Norris (OCC-9427) and letter dated 8/31/90 from Paul Jackson Rice to David Holscher (Std. 108)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of December 1, 1993, to Robert Hellmuth of this agency. You have written us questioning the disconnection of your original equipment center highmounted stop lamp when an aftermarket spoiler with lamp was installed on your Honda. American Honda has referred you to us, referencing an interpretation by our form Chief Counsel, Paul Jackson Rice.

I enclose a copy of Mr. Rice's letter of August 31, 1990, to David Holscher which sets forth the agency's views on this subject. These views remain our position.

The disconnecting of your lamp appears permitted under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 according to this interpretation. Because Federal authorities do not interpret the laws of the individual states, we are unable to comment on the Louisiana provisions that you paraphrase, except to note that "tail lights", as you refer to them, are not "stop lamps" under Standard No. 108. Taillamps are another item of lighting equipment and have no relevance to the wiring of the center highmounted stop lamp.

ID: nht93-9.27

DATE: December 28, 1993

FROM: Lloyd Boshaw -- C.E.O., Auto Trim

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Consul, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/21/94 from John Womack to Lloyd Boshaw (A42; Std. 108) and letter dated 8/31/90 from Paul Jackson Rice to David Holscher

TEXT:

We have a small business installing after market accessories for automobile dealers and customers. Among the accessories installed are the rear deck lid spoilers. We remain confused over the question should the Vehicle manufacturer's brake light in the rear window be disconnected when a spoiler is added (which has a brake light). This would mean you would be adding one additional brake light.

Our contacts with local agencies have indicated that they want and prefer the additional safety illumination from the added brake light in the spoiler.

The photographs and sketches will provide a clearer explanation.

In our effort to make sure we provide the finest service to our dealers we wanted to be sure we do not have a question concerning this matter.

The defined question is, When we add a spoiler to a vehicle (which has a brake light) must we disconnect the vehicle manufacturer's brake light in the rear window?

All logic that we can find says "no." Some concerns result from disconnecting the vehicle manufacturer's brake light in the rear window when it is not necessary. First, the additional brake light in the spoiler provides additional brake light illumination for safety. Disconnecting the vehicle manufacturer's brake light in the rear window creates a warning light in the instrument cluster to go on indicating a brake light is out. This can be overcome by relays etc. However, we believe the manufacturer's brake light and wiring should be left intact whenever possible. Only one large dealer and account has asked that we disconnect the light and we are awaiting your reply until we take on his account.

We are informed that spoilers are being installed all over the country without disconnecting the vehicle manufacturer's brake light.

As you know most small businesses are in tough times due to the current economy and in that fact we would like to ask you for an opinion or judgment as soon as possible so we may continue business with as little interruption as absolutely necessary, it will be greatly appreciated.

ID: nht93-9.28

DATE: December 30, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein

TO: Dennis Platt -- Supervisor, Vehicle Safety & Equipment Section, State of Utah, Department of Public Safety, Utah Highway Patrol

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/7/93 from Dennis Platt to Office of the Chief Counsel (OCC-9439), NHTSA, letter dated 3/4/93 from John Womack to Robert A. Ernst, and letter dated 1/19/90 from Stephen P. Wood to Linda L. Conrad

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of December 7, 1993, requesting confirmation of a statement made by a NHTSA officer that there is no federal regulation that requires replacement of a deployed air bag.

I am enclosing two letters that explain legal obligations to replace air bags which have been deployed. The first letter, dated January, 19, 1990, is to Ms. Linda L. Conrad. The second letter, dated March 4, 1993, is to Mr. Robert A. Ernst. As explained in those letters, Federal law does not require replacement of a deployed air bag in a used vehicle. In addition, there is no Federal law that prohibits selling a used vehicle with a supplemental restraint that is inoperable because of a previous deployment. However, our agency strongly encourages dealers and repair businesses to replace deployed air bags whenever vehicles are repaired or resold, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants. Moreover, a dealer or repair business may be required by state law to replace a deployed air bag, or be liable for failure to do so.

I am also enclosing a copy of the information sheet referred to in the two letters discussed above. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-9.29

DATE: December 30, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein

TO: Matt Gerrity

COPYEE: Harris W. Fawell -- U.S. Representative

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/9/93 from Harris W. Fawell to Howard Smolkin (OCC 9457); Also attached to letter from Matt Gerrity to Howard Smoklin

TEXT:

This responds to your letter, forward to us on December 9, 1993, by Representative Harris W. Fawell, regarding the removal of the air bag in your 1990 Coupe de Ville. Because you have a physical handicap, you had your vehicle modified by the installation of a hand control system over the steering wheel. You are concerned that, in the event the air bag should activate, the steering device would probably pop off causing serious injury. You also stated that dealers and other mechanics are reluctant to disconnect the air bag because of Federal law.

As discussed below, in certain limited situations, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has exercised its discretion in enforcing our regulations to provide some allowance when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. While the disconnection of an air bag by a dealer or motor vehicle repair business would ordinarily be a violation of Federal law, this is to advise you that this agency would not institute enforcement proceedings against a dealer or repair business that disconnected the driver side air bag in your vehicle. If you show this letter to your dealer or mechanic, you should be able to get this work performed.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses modifying certified vehicles are affected by S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. It prohibits those businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any elements of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a safety standard.

Removal or disconnection of an air bag by any of the named commercial entities would violate the "render inoperative" prohibition, since air bags are installed to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. However, in certain situations where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, NHTSA has been willing to consider any violation of S108(a)(2)(A) a purely technical one justified by public need, and indicated that it would not institute enforcement proceedings. We will take this position for the specific factual situation cited above.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made. For example, S4.5.2 of Standard No. 208 requires a readiness indicator for an air bag system which is clearly visible from the driver's seating position. After the air bag is removed, this indicator would show that the air bag system is not operative. The readiness indicator should not be modified, so other drivers who may expect an air bag will be aware that the air bag is not functional.

I would also like to caution your dealer or mechanic to contact the vehicle manufacturer concerning the proper procedure for any air bag disconnection as this procedure could cause it to deploy and injure the mechanic. As a final caution, I note that the purpose of the "render inoperative" provision is to ensure, to the degree possible, that current and subsequent owners and users of a vehicle are not deprived of the maximum protection afforded by the vehicle as newly manufactured. Your letter states that you would have the air bag reconnected before selling the car. I urge you to have this work performed so that future users of the vehicle will have the protection the air bag affords.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-9.3

DATE: December 4, 1993

FROM: David Fabrycky

TO: Chief Counsel -- US DOT, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/12/94 From John Womack To David Fabrycky (A42; Std. 213; VSA 108(a)(2)(A)

TEXT: Dear Sir,

I and my associates are currently involved in the development of a child safety device that is intended to prevent the inadvertent and curiosty based opening of the safety buckle by a one to six year old. Although there have been many studies done on the value of such a device the Code of Federal Regulations contains many relevant statements regarding the testing and operation of child restraint systems.

I am writing you for the purpose of gaining your insight and opinion as to the relationship between the type of device we have developed and the standards articulated in the Code of Federal Regulations.

Our device is and after-market item purchased by the parent or gaurdian. The device covers the safety buckle and prevents the child from gaining access to the pushbutton. The adult or gaurdian is presumed to possess sufficient mannual dexterity and cognitive skills to easily remove the cover and release the safety belt. The device is also transparent so that the objective is visible.

Regarding the following sections, what is your opinion of the installation of such a device on a child's seat belt buckle in conjuction with other approved devices?

Please find several references to the Code of Federal Regulations followed by specific issues/questions in boldface.

CFR 571.214

S5.4.3.5 Buckle Release. Any buckle in a child restraint system belt assembly designed to restrain a child using the system shall: (a) When tested in accordance with S6.2.1 prior to the dynamic test of S6.1, not release when a force of less than 9 pounds is applied and shall release when a force of not more than 14 pounds is applied:

The device requires that a latch be accuated and the cover pivoted away from the buckle so that the pushbutton can be depressed. If none of the forces required to accomplish these tasks exceed the limits specified, would the device be acceptable.

The device requires the manual dexterity to exert the forces in many directions simulateously. Does this comply with the foregoing requirement?

(b) After the dynamic test S6.1, when tested in accordance with S6.2.3, release when a force of not more than 16 pounds is applied;

2

The device does not bear the restraining force of any test and is designed to operate after any stress as when first installed.

(c) Meet the requirements of S4.3(d)(2) of FMVSS No. 209 (CFR 571.209), except that the minimum surface area for child restraint buckles designed for pushbutton application shall be 0.6 square inch;

The device covers the pushbutton during use. The parent or gaurdian is required to remove the device in order to access the pushbutton.

S6 Test Conditions and procedures.

This section describes in detail the procedures required for child restraint system. How would the addition of the device relate to the objectives of the tests?

S6.2 Buckle Release Test procedure.

This section describes in detail the procedures required for buckle of child restraint systems. How would the addition of the device relate to the objectives of the tests?

What other Regulations seem relevant to the development of our device and do you have other observations or opinions that relate to public policy that I have not mentioned?

Thank you in advance for your prompt response.

Sincerly

ID: nht93-9.4

DATE: December 6, 1993

FROM: Tilman Spingler -- Automotive Equipment Div. 2, Robert Bosch GmbH

TO: Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: Petition for an "Exemption for Inconsequential Noncompliance" to FMVSS 108, S7.8.5.2 (On Vehicle Aiming)

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/26/94 from John Womack to Tilman Spingler (A42; Std. 108; Part 573)

TEXT:

FMVSS 108 requires in the above mentioned paragraph a graduation of not larger than 0.19 degree for the scale of the vertical and 0.38 degree for the scale of the horizontal aim indicator. To make the scales more clearly legible and to avoid confusions we kindly ask for the permission to use scales with graduations of 0.2/0.4 degree.

We principally prefer scales with numbers indicating the graduation.

It is our opinion that there is no influence on the accuracy of aim because 1/100 degree is less than the width of the graduation-lines on bubble vials and scales used on headlamps.

ID: nht93-9.5

DATE: December 7, 1993

FROM: Dennis Platt -- Supervisor, Vehicle Safety & Equipment Section, State of Utah, Department of Public Safety, Utah Highway Patrol

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: Air bag installation

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/30/93 from John Womack to Dennis Platt (A42; Std. 208), letter dated 3/4/93 from John Womack to Robert A. Ernst, and letter dated 1/19/90 from Stephen P. Wood to Linda L. Conrad

TEXT:

During a recent telephone conversation with a N.H.T.S.A officer, I was informed that no current federal requirement exists for air bag re-installation following a deployment.

The Utah Highway Patrol would appreciate a formal opinion or a copy of an opinion rendered to another state on this issue.

Your prompt attention to this request is appreciated.

ID: nht93-9.6

DATE: December 8, 1993

FROM: Michael J. Siris -- Attorney at Law

TO: Mary Versailles -- NHTSA

COPYEE: Roger Harvey

TITLE: Standard 114

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/10/94 from John Womack to Michael J. Siris (A42; Std. 114; VSA S108(k))

TEXT:

Although you were nice enough to answer my questions regarding standard no. 114, I still would like to have some confirmation that a manufacture's compliance with a given NHTSA standard does not necessarily exonerate the manufacture. Is that proposition published in the CFR.

Also, given the scenario we discussed, i.e., the 1987 Ford which allowed the automatic transmission to be shifted while the key was not in the steering column, do you have any other suggestions besides no. 114? In other words, is there some other source of standards that might be more stringent than NHTSA's standards?

Thank you for your anticipated attention to this matter.

ID: nht93-9.7

DATE: December 8, 1993

FROM: Steve J. Brooks -- Program Manager, IAD West Coast, Inc.

TO: Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/7/94 from John Womack to Steve J. Brooks (A42; Part 567; Part 571.3)

TEXT:

We are developing a vehicle, of which only six will be built.

These vehicles will be fit for highway use and will be used to travel to trade shows and promotional events at which point the crew of two will distribute items and literature relating to the company.

The vehicle will carry less than ten passengers and the GVWR will be 11,500 lbs.

Would the office of chief council please indicate, what drivers license would be necessary to operate this vehicle, and confirm the classification of the vehicle.

Look forward to your reply.

(Drawing omitted.)

ID: nht93-9.8

DATE: December 9, 1993

FROM: Harris W. Fawell -- U.S. House of Representatives

TO: Howard Smolkin -- Acting Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Matthew Gerrity; 7624 Rohrer Drive, Downers Grove, IL 60516

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/30/93 from John Womack (signed by Kenneth N. Weinstein) to Matt Gerrity (A42; Redbook (2); Std. 208; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

During April of this year, a member of my district office staff spoke with John Wolmack in your office regarding Mr. Gerrity's problem with a new Cadillac he had purchased. Because of a physical handicap, the steering wheel of Mr. Gerrity's car must be modified with a device which permits him to operate it. As he explains it, the device would prohibit the normal function of the air bag and would cause him injury in the event of an accident. Mr. Wolmack said that requests to authorize the waiver of federal air bag regulations are considered on a case-by-case basis, and suggested that Mr. Gerrity should write to you, explaining the circumstances, and the need for such a waiver.

We are writing to you now because Mr. had advised us that he had written a letter to you, and had not received a response. When we called Mr. Wolmack about this, he told us that your records showed that no letter had been received. We then asked Mr. Gerrity for a copy of his letter, which we now present to you. We note that the letter is undated and that your address is not complete, which may explain why you cannot locate the original.

I would appreciate your responding to Mr. Gerrity on the basis of this copy. If this is not possible, please advise us on what we need to do in order for you to consider his request that he be authorized to disconnect the air bag.

All of this is a little convoluted, I know. Thanks for your patience and whatever help you can give us to help Mr. Gerrity with his problem.

- - -

The following is the letter from Matt Gerrity to Howard Smolkin:

Matt Gerrity 7624 Rohrer Drive Downers Grove, IL 60516 (708) 964-7201

Howard Smolkin National Highway Safety Administration 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20598

Dear Mr. Smoklin,

I am a handicapped motorist. In order to steer my car, I have a metal bar that goes across the steering-wheel with a type of spinner-know at the end. I recently purchased a 1990 Coup De Vile with a drivers side air-bag. In the

event, the air-bag should go off, the steering device would probably pop off causing serious injury. I have gone to dealers and other mechanics who see the obvious problem but are reluctant to disconnect the air-bag because of Federal Law. I would have the air-bag connected again upon sale of this car. Please tell me what measures I should take.

Sincerely,

Matt Gerrity